Scientific Method —

Solar variability has a small effect on climate change

For the last 1,200 years of the Northern Hemisphere, at least.

The Earth wouldn't have much of a climate if it weren't for the Sun. But it's a different thing entirely to conclude that because of its essential role the Sun contributes significantly to climate change. To alter the climate, the amount of energy sent our way by the Sun would have to vary significantly. And most studies have found that, while the Sun's output does vary, it hasn't seemed to have changed enough to have left a mark on the recent climate record.

But a few studies have suggested that the Sun's influence may be much larger. In fact, the range of estimates differ by an order of magnitude. One of the high-end estimates attempted to infer historic solar activity based on an examination of the details of the Sun that we can currently observe. And that, as its title suggests, "leads to large historical solar forcing."

Further Reading

A team from the University of Edinburgh decided to figure out if that actually made any sense. So, they compared a climate model's output with reconstructions of the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures for the last 1,200 years (Northern Hemisphere data is much more complete than Southern). Within the climate model, they set both large and small values for the influence of solar activity on the climate.

And the large values simply don't work very well. With a high value for solar influence, nearly three hundred of the 1,000 years of the comparison failed to line up—the model output failed to match the historical record. In contrast, with a low value of solar influence, the number of mismatched years was cut by more than half. There was also an extended period at the start of the last millennium where the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures were high (commonly called the Medieval Warm Period), yet the solar activity was relatively low.

Doing a fingerprint analysis, which identifies the climate influences that produce the climate changes we actually measure, researchers showed that volcanoes and greenhouse gasses were the largest influences on the climate over the last 1,000 years, with greenhouse gasses playing a role even before their recent rise due to industrialization. In addition, they find that volcanic eruptions have both a short-term impact on climate (which was known) as well as a longer-term cooling impact.

Clearly, this study is limited by being focused on the Northern Hemisphere, when what we generally care about is the global effect. If solar activity did have a strong global influence, however, there should be periods where at least some of that effect was apparent in the Northern Hemisphere. It's also limited by being focused on a single climate model. The authors confirmed that a second model produced similar results, and they note that the fingerprint analysis depends only on the timing of changes, and not their magnitude. As a result, they "conclude that large solar forcing is inconsistent with reconstructions of climate of the past millennium."

That doesn't mean that the Sun couldn't force changes if its activity shifted more significantly than it has over the last thousand years or so. But that period includes both the Maunder and Dalton minimums, which are periods of exceptionally low activity in the historical record. It also doesn't rule out solar activity driving regional changes that are swamped when averaging across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

Nevertheless, the study is another point against the idea that the Sun's variability has had a significant influence on the historic climate. And, in that, it's consistent with the majority of other results.

The report explains that the 2000s have seen some cooling influence from a slight lull in radiation from the Sun...

--t

I find your lack of faith disturbing - either you are a believer or a denier. There is no room for questions or debates as these things are proven and settled. /s

The funny thing is that regardless of how much you question the "science" you still should be working to maximize efficiency so in the end it doesn't matter - increase the insulation in your home, reduce your power consumption and work to achieve a reduction in energy importation and you will be doing something that everyone can agree is a good idea. But that would be boring and doesn't make for good arguments...

The report explains that the 2000s have seen some cooling influence from a slight lull in radiation from the Sun...

--t

And how is that inconsistent with "Solar variability has a small effect on climate change" ? "Small influence" is *not* the same as "No influence"... AFAIK the estimated influence of normal solar variability (ie. the regular 11 year solar cycle) is in the order of roughly 0.1K - since global warming in the last half-century has been at roughly 0.15K/decade the difference between solar max and solar min is just about enough to case a slowdown for a short while, and seeing how the current solar max is lower than it has been for a century, the IPCC's statement does not contradict anything else.

On the other hand, it is now already about 1K warmer on average than it was 150 years ago, far beyond the difference to be expected due to ordinary solar variability.

So trying to get in before the idiots: nobody is saying the Sun doesn't affect climate (obviously, without the sun we'd be quite close to absolute zero), just that the relatively small variability in the sun's output is not even remotely the main cause of recent global warming and, if this research is confirmed, it might not even be the main cause of the "Little Ice Age", even though it very very rougly coincided with several periods of low solar activity.

Well, if it's not the Sun, then how about the Earth's molten core? I heard it's really hot and the magnetic field is going to shift any day now (making climate change a moot point after compasses no longer point north), so that's got to be why.

The study concluded that large effects from solar forcing was inconsistent with the climate model reconstruction they used. I'm not sure what additional evidence/logic was presented to show that the model/reconstruction should be accepted as good and the solar forcing rejected, rather than the other way around (i.e. discarding the model/reconstruction rather than the solar forcing hypothesis). Are there any experts here who can clarify how that last logical step works? Is it because of the other evidence used in the reconstruction's development? That seems kind of like circular reasoning.

I find your lack of faith disturbing - either you are a believer or a denier.

See, there's the problem. We all know that beliefs have no place in science so any good scientist has no choice but to be a denier.Therefore I am publicly stating my position as a climate denier. I will no longer accept the notion that there is a climate.

The report explains that the 2000s have seen some cooling influence from a slight lull in radiation from the Sun...

--t

I find your lack of faith disturbing - either you are a believer or a denier. There is no room for questions or debates as these things are proven and settled. /s

The funny thing is that regardless of how much you question the "science" you still should be working to maximize efficiency so in the end it doesn't matter - increase the insulation in your home, reduce your power consumption and work to achieve a reduction in energy importation and you will be doing something that everyone can agree is a good idea. But that would be boring and doesn't make for good arguments...

Quick disclaimer: I have no problem accepting the arguments in favor of man made climate change. I frankly believe that the evidence is overwhelming, and the statistical models are sound. Minor tweaking might be interesting to isolate specific variables to determine their impact, but that, at this point, is just knowledge of the sake of knowledge (not necessarily a bad thing, but not needed to start moving forward on policy). End disclaimer.

If you are a denier, I just want to know one thing - why the heck do you want to continue to blow a large percentage of your household budget on wasteful energy? Coal, for example, has no where near the energy efficiency of gasoline, and gasoline or natural gas plants have no where near the efficiency as home mounted solar and battery systems (when you factor in lines, line maintenance, down time due to a car hitting a pole etc etc). It is like people who buy huge gas guzzling vehicles that they do not use - do you like blowing your cash? If climate change scientists said nose length was related to climate change would you cut off your nose to spite them? Climate change or no climate change I like minimizing my costs and maximizing my profit - energy efficient technologies do this. Do you know how much money UPS would be able to give back to shareholders (the goal of all great Republicans I believe) if they got rid of every ICE, and replaced them with battery power and solar recharging plants? We want to maximize shareholder value right? Cause we're good capitalists?

Speaking of little ice age, i always find it amusing when people ignore that little tidbit when discussing climate change despite how significant it is esp in recent historical record. if i had a penny for every time someone presented descriptions of snow from the 1800 as proof of global warming today i would be a very rich man.

If I had a penny every time someone tried to use (usually misquoted) anecdotes to argue against hard facts, I'd have bought the Island of Manhattan twice over by now. Not that I'd buy ALL of Manhattan. First, some of it is public land not for sale. Second, 5% of it could be underwater in 50 years.

Perhaps there is no other "side." What recent scientific papers conclude something different than the earth's average temperature is getting warmer, and humans are the cause of most of it? I believe Ars would cover such a paper, if it exists.

What would the coverage look like if there are actually no papers being published about the other "side?" I would bet something very similar to what we are seeing right now.

If you are a denier, I just want to know one thing - why the heck do you want to continue to blow a large percentage of your household budget on wasteful energy? Coal, for example, has no where near the energy efficiency of gasoline, and gasoline or natural gas plants have no where near the efficiency as home mounted solar and battery systems (when you factor in lines, line maintenance, down time due to a car hitting a pole etc etc). It is like people who buy huge gas guzzling vehicles that they do not use - do you like blowing your cash?

Yeah, actually. Some people love blowing their cash on wasteful Humvees and Escalades as either A) a sign of wealth or B) to piss off people who disagree with them politically. Public shame works for group A. They are, after all, trying to impress people. As for Group B, you just have to point out an enemy that they dislike even more (i.e. MUZZLIMS IN SAUDDA AHHH-RAAAY-BEE-UH).

So Ars should be 'unbiased' as far as overwhelming scientific consensus is concerned? It seems to me that what you're really asking for is favorable treatment for climate change denial. That wouldn't be lack of bias, that would be lack of good judgment.

I might as well demand equal respect for my claim of leprechauns living at the bottom of the garden. After all, just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't there.

Quote:

Your tech coverage is superb, but every fourth article being about global warming/climate change is getting old fast.

The study concluded that large effects from solar forcing was inconsistent with the climate model reconstruction they used. I'm not sure what additional evidence/logic was presented to show that the model/reconstruction should be accepted as good and the solar forcing rejected, rather than the other way around (i.e. discarding the model/reconstruction rather than the solar forcing hypothesis). Are there any experts here who can clarify how that last logical step works? Is it because of the other evidence used in the reconstruction's development? That seems kind of like circular reasoning.

You need to understand the context. The context is, "I've got this climate model that basically seems to work and I want to understand how the solar influx varied in the past as an indication of how it might vary in the future if we don't have big control knob on the sun." The model accounts for the measured variation of the sun during the period in which we've been able to directly observe it already.

Two German scientists, Horst-Joachin Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy, say that "two naturally occurring climate cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the next century."

They added, "by the year 2100, temperatures on this planet will plunge to levels seen at the end of the 'Little Ice Age' in 1870."

These researchers used historical data detailing temperatures as well as cave stalagmites to show a recurring 200-year solar cycle called the DeVries Cycle.

Solar activity is one area of evidence that scientists have used for decades in predicting both global warming and global cooling. Low sunspot activity has been linked to the 'Little Ice Age' between 1350 and 1870. The recent warmer periods have been associated with much higher than normal solar activity.

Climate change due to humans.....possible....globally significant? not so much. We're vain little creatures and think we are the only shiznit in town.

Yeah, except the data overwhelming says otherwise, and against that we've got what, your assertion that it can't be us?

For over 150 years since the industrial revolution ever increasing numbers of people (7 billion and counting) have been pumping out ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide. The planet is not so large, and we are not so insignificant, that this doesn't have an effect.

One claims Ars' coverage is biased, another insinuates that models are useless, and the third is pretty much a huge "fuck you". Glad to see things are proceeding about as expected.

Reminds me of the talk.origins usenet group in the 80s. Some newbie having a tidbit of 'science' disproving evolution from the IRC or CRS, etc, posts for the first time only to be avalanched by those who know and understand about science.

Wouldn’t the study be more meaningful if it was for the last 12,000 years –a period of known global warming? Or perhaps the last 20,000 years to catch both global cooling and warming. 1200 years is way too short a period for meaningful results except for weather.

These are great articles. I love how they bring in new posters who register only to scream bias! I hope those posts contribute to the revenue here. It's nice to think that sock puppets for industry are at least indirectly contributing to Ars.

The funny thing is that regardless of how much you question the "science" you still should be working to maximize efficiency so in the end it doesn't matter - increase the insulation in your home, reduce your power consumption and work to achieve a reduction in energy importation and you will be doing something that everyone can agree is a good idea. But that would be boring and doesn't make for good arguments...

While I believe the science indicating climate change, the above reasoning is illogical.

If you truly believe that climate change is not happening, then no, it doesn't make sense to change your lifestyle. For example, many homes around here are solid masonry with no wall cavities. They also have beautiful Victorian trim. To insulate the home would me cladding the brick exterior, which isn't really an option at all. Or it would be possible to frame the interior walls inward, installing a new stud wall and insulating that. Unfortunately that means rewiring the entire home, throwing away all the historic trim, losing the historic plaster surfaces, ripping out iron radiators to move them away from the walls, which also involves tearing up the whole house to re-do the original cast iron radiator pipes, etc.

It would make sense for a denier living in such a house to spend their life worrying about other stuff. Perhaps they can brush and floss their teeth for longer every day. Or perhaps they can volunteer to help others, etc.

As much as you might wish for it to be true, it doesn't make sense for deniers to take action as if they weren't deniers. It isn't logical.

Climate change due to humans.....possible....globally significant? not so much. We're vain little creatures and think we are the only shiznit in town. Can humans completely destroy a local enviroment? absolutely.

Disagree. We have already seen changes to the environment on a massive scale caused by human interaction. Rain/drought patterns across continents have shifted. Species have been globally killed off. Viruses and bacteria have been eradicated...and introduced. Atmospheric pollution affects everyone. The chemistry of the oceans has changed. To believe that climate cannot be altered by a species that covers every square inch of Earth's land and contaminates the waters and the skies is to underestimate the problem.

Quote:

As a country boy, I look at you people and say...quit building your damned skyscrapers and covering everything with concrete and throwing everything in the rivers. Quit cutting down all the trees.

Disagree. Where is everyone supposed to live and work if we don't expand? Like it or not, populations grow. That means that we continually need to build new skyscrapers and houses and roads and schools and so on. This requires land and concrete and wood and steel. It's unfortunate that we haven't learned how to manage our waste better. But human expansion isn't going to stop.

This is one of the tenets behind Sagan's and Hawking's statements that long-term human survival depends on getting off this planet. They didn't mean that we need to abandon Earth. Rather, we need to be able to colonize space, other planets, and moons. Earth's resources are limited, but our proclivity to reproduce is not. As we expand, so too must our frontier.

Quote:

But then I have to hear....oh, you should allow the power company to set your house temperature, you should drive a car with a smaller motor than your lawn mower....and all these restrictions on us small people. Well...fuck you and the planet you live on.

Agree. This isn't the answer. Moderation is always a good rule of thumb, but it won't save our planet. Populations will increase faster than consumption can decrease.

Quote:

Scientists were telling us in the 70's, we'd all be deep froze by now.....now we're going to over heat..except that we arent...and it's because of the sun's inactivity...but dont go trying to say that the sun has any measurable effect on climate change. It's a good excuse for us to use to justify why our predictions are wrong, but it isnt a good arguement for you to use to say why our predictions are wrong. .....

Agree. They also told us that the rain forests and the ozone layer would already be gone. Neither happened. But I don't blame the scientists specifically. Scientific data is usually misrepresented by the media and politicians with agendas. It's easy to use one or two selected studies to back up a position. It's harder to be patient and see what the cumulative data really says.

Quote:

Then you have the whole climate gate with .."scientists" purposefully destroying data sets, concealing data sets, and even falsifying data sets and telling us, we should just trust them because they are scientists.

Agree. That was certainly a black eye on the scientific community. But I think enough independent data has surfaced since then to support their original claim. Their passion was notable, but their methods were dishonorable.

Quote:

Also, I havent seen one single solar company that can fully provide electricity to a whole household. What they do, is setup in states that have a electrical grid buy back program, and you generate electricity during the day that feeds the grid and you get a bit knocked off your bill. I know people that are trying thier damnedest to get off the electrical grid....and unless you want to live like it's 1850, you're probably not going to do it, if you can afford to do it. But dont let that be construed that I am against throwing some solar panels on your roof to offset your expenses, it's just got a long ways to get into the green/black of the cost savings.

Agree. Renewable energy is not going to get us anywhere at the present time. While solar, wind, geothermal, and geophysical energies are good examples of innovative thinking, all of them combined power only a small percentage of this country's (USA) needs, let alone the rest of the world. We're just not there.

We do need to keep thinking. We need R&D. We need more students in STEM (science, tech, engineering, math) careers. We need to move forward if we're to tackle the current problems, let alone the unforeseen upcoming issues.

The funny thing is that regardless of how much you question the "science" you still should be working to maximize efficiency so in the end it doesn't matter - increase the insulation in your home, reduce your power consumption and work to achieve a reduction in energy importation and you will be doing something that everyone can agree is a good idea. But that would be boring and doesn't make for good arguments...

While I believe the science indicating climate change, the above reasoning is illogical.

If you truly believe that climate change is not happening, then no, it doesn't make sense to change your lifestyle. For example, many homes around here are solid masonry with no wall cavities. They also have beautiful Victorian trim. To insulate the home would me cladding the brick exterior, which isn't really an option at all. Or it would be possible to frame the interior walls inward, installing a new stud wall and insulating that. Unfortunately that means rewiring the entire home, throwing away all the historic trim, losing the historic plaster surfaces, ripping out iron radiators to move them away from the walls, which also involves tearing up the whole house to re-do the original cast iron radiator pipes, etc.

It would make sense for a denier living in such a house to spend their life worrying about other stuff. Perhaps they can brush and floss their teeth for longer every day. Or perhaps they can volunteer to help others, etc.

As much as you might wish for it to be true, it doesn't make sense for deniers to take action as if they weren't deniers. It isn't logical.

It all depends on the cost/benefit. If there are relatively easy ways to conserve energy that don't significantly alter your lifestyle, it makes sense to do them for your own financial benefit even if you deny the evidence that it's important in the wider scope.

If you live in a house where it's very inconvenient/impossible/damaging to improve the insulation, then obviously that's not going to be a likely area to try improving (even if you're not a denier). When it comes to efficiency gains, you aim for the "low hanging fruit" that's easy to get.

For example, light bulbs are pretty easy to change (and incandescents burn out all the time and need to be replaced anyway), and the efficiency gains generally pay off the modestly increased cost pretty quickly, so that's an easy target.

Cars also generally wear out more quickly than houses, so when buying a new car, it makes sense to consider efficiency as one of the factors in deciding what to buy. That doesn't mean it has to be the only factor, but the anticipated fuel cost over the life of the vehicle should be considered when comparing the cost/benefit of various vehicles.

If you're building a new house, the cost difference between good insulation and crappy insulation is also pretty quickly recovered in reduced heating/cooling costs in most climates. Replacing the insulation on an existing house is a bit more expensive (compared to doing nothing and leaving the existing insulation), but even that can make financial sense in many cases.

Efficiency is economically a good thing in general, regardless of climate change or any individual person's belief or disbelief in it.

The funny thing is that regardless of how much you question the "science" you still should be working to maximize efficiency so in the end it doesn't matter - increase the insulation in your home, reduce your power consumption and work to achieve a reduction in energy importation and you will be doing something that everyone can agree is a good idea. But that would be boring and doesn't make for good arguments...

While I believe the science indicating climate change, the above reasoning is illogical.

If you truly believe that climate change is not happening, then no, it doesn't make sense to change your lifestyle. For example, many homes around here are solid masonry with no wall cavities. They also have beautiful Victorian trim. To insulate the home would me cladding the brick exterior, which isn't really an option at all. Or it would be possible to frame the interior walls inward, installing a new stud wall and insulating that. Unfortunately that means rewiring the entire home, throwing away all the historic trim, losing the historic plaster surfaces, ripping out iron radiators to move them away from the walls, which also involves tearing up the whole house to re-do the original cast iron radiator pipes, etc.

It would make sense for a denier living in such a house to spend their life worrying about other stuff. Perhaps they can brush and floss their teeth for longer every day. Or perhaps they can volunteer to help others, etc.

As much as you might wish for it to be true, it doesn't make sense for deniers to take action as if they weren't deniers. It isn't logical.

Many homes around where... ? In the US most homes light-framed houses, which typically can be way more energy efficient by correctly utilizing insulation. Up until very recently construction techniques left much to be desired.

The rest of the things he is talking about save money, which is also usually important to people.

"If you are a denier, I just want to know one thing - why the heck do you want to continue to blow a large percentage of your household budget on wasteful energy?"

Coal and petroleum is cheapest source of energy for many in that half of the world's population that lives on less than $2.50 per day. To deny these folks the opportunity to lift themselves out of poverty smacks of a policy of euthanasia.

I wonder what gives you the right to think your grandchildren are more important than theirs?

Ok, not sure about you, but I graduated high school in 1980.... We studied "the coming ice age" in school. It was in Time magazine, it was on the news, it was WIDELY discussed, and people were actually worried about it...so don't sit there and say that it wasn't.

Why would you try to re-write history?

Secondly, there were no scientific papers that were brought to the world's attention denying the coming ice age and describing the coming "world warming"....everyone was worried about a coming ice age. I was there, I lived through this crap. I remember thinking, after none of it came to pass, " Why the hell did they tell us all this if it wasn't true?"

The difference between then and now is that back then, the scientists reporting this said that is what they BELIEVED would happen...I also remember being taught that this was their best "theory" as to what is coming. When it didn't happen, those scientists and their research kind of just "quietly" disappeared and the subject was allowed to die.

As another person who has seen a wide discrepancy between what I was taught in school (graduated HS in late 90s), I think the bigger issue here is how we were educated. I spent a big part of undergrad having various models of reality broken. It's not just stuff being simplified, or sugar-coated, it was fundamentally wrong.

I was lucky enough to have a strong education in the concepts of science to be able to evaluate & explore the stuff, but I saw other classmates just not be able to do that. I think that is part of the reason the general population has so many issues with believing things like evolution.

The funny thing is that regardless of how much you question the "science" you still should be working to maximize efficiency so in the end it doesn't matter - increase the insulation in your home, reduce your power consumption and work to achieve a reduction in energy importation and you will be doing something that everyone can agree is a good idea. But that would be boring and doesn't make for good arguments...

While I believe the science indicating climate change, the above reasoning is illogical.

If you truly believe that climate change is not happening, then no, it doesn't make sense to change your lifestyle. For example, many homes around here are solid masonry with no wall cavities. They also have beautiful Victorian trim. To insulate the home would me cladding the brick exterior, which isn't really an option at all. Or it would be possible to frame the interior walls inward, installing a new stud wall and insulating that. Unfortunately that means rewiring the entire home, throwing away all the historic trim, losing the historic plaster surfaces, ripping out iron radiators to move them away from the walls, which also involves tearing up the whole house to re-do the original cast iron radiator pipes, etc.

It would make sense for a denier living in such a house to spend their life worrying about other stuff. Perhaps they can brush and floss their teeth for longer every day. Or perhaps they can volunteer to help others, etc.

As much as you might wish for it to be true, it doesn't make sense for deniers to take action as if they weren't deniers. It isn't logical.

It all depends on the cost/benefit. If there are relatively easy ways to conserve energy that don't significantly alter your lifestyle, it makes sense to do them for your own financial benefit even if you deny the evidence that it's important in the wider scope.

If you live in a house where it's very inconvenient/impossible/damaging to improve the insulation, then obviously that's not going to be a likely area to try improving (even if you're not a denier). When it comes to efficiency gains, you aim for the "low hanging fruit" that's easy to get.

For example, light bulbs are pretty easy to change (and incandescents burn out all the time and need to be replaced anyway), and the efficiency gains generally pay off the modestly increased cost pretty quickly, so that's an easy target.

Cars also generally wear out more quickly than houses, so when buying a new car, it makes sense to consider efficiency as one of the factors in deciding what to buy. That doesn't mean it has to be the only factor, but the anticipated fuel cost over the life of the vehicle should be considered when comparing the cost/benefit of various vehicles.

If you're building a new house, the cost difference between good insulation and crappy insulation is also pretty quickly recovered in reduced heating/cooling costs in most climates. Replacing the insulation on an existing house is a bit more expensive (compared to doing nothing and leaving the existing insulation), but even that can make financial sense in many cases.

Efficiency is economically a good thing in general, regardless of climate change or any individual person's belief or disbelief in it.

Again, I wish it weren't true, but it is entirely logical for deniers to take no action.

Let's look at your example of efficient light bulbs. While I believe climate change is happening and like to save money, I purposely choose to not use CFLs or LED lights. This is a well informed choice. The reasoning is as follows. I really prefer the color spectrum put off by incandescent bulbs. I've got a ton of CFL and LED bulbs that I bought to try out. They're all sitting in a box to remind of what not to buy in the future. Someday, hopefully soon, there will be energy efficient options that put off pleasant light. I will continue to buy new light bulbs as they become available. But unless they put off good light, they'll go unused.

A similar point can be made about cars. If looking for just efficient motor vehicle, everyone should be riding scooters. Why don't people ride scooters? Because they "like" cars. Most people buy cars based almost entirely on unjustifiable preferences. Otherwise we'd buy used cars for a fraction of the cost. After all, they still get us to where we're going.

To generalize the mistake in logic exhibited here, it is important to realize that not everyone has the same priorities in life. You obviously value lower energy bills over a choice in lighting spectrum. You also appear to value a car's fuel efficiency more than aesthetics or performance.

The same mistaken logic would lead us to believe that everyone should be an extreme coupon cutter. Indeed, there are hundreds if not thousands of things people could concentrate on to improve various aspects of their life. Some people value not having to think about some things yet are not troubled by agonizing over other minutia.

If I had to pick just two things that people should concentrate more on in the society I live in... it would be eating healthily and exercising regularly. But those are just my preference. Other people might want to spend time on decreasing violent crime or ending poverty or even world hunger

You see, there are only so many things that any single person can concentrate on. If someone is a climate denier, it can be quite logical for them to ignore economic gains from efficiency and instead focus on crisis that they find more important.

This post was meant to encourage you to arguing with deniers using a different tactic. They exhibit mistaken reasoning in their initial denial. However, with that as a given, the rest of their life choices are entirely consistent. Trying to argue otherwise is even more illogical than their denial.

"Nevertheless, the study is another point against the idea that the Sun's variability has had a significant influence on the historic climate. And, in that, it's consistent with the majority of other results."

Many homes around where... ? In the US most homes light-framed houses, which typically can be way more energy efficient by correctly utilizing insulation. Up until very recently construction techniques left much to be desired.

The rest of the things he is talking about save money, which is also usually important to people.

Pittsburgh. Much of the city is comprised of solid brick homes with no wall cavities.

Yeah, everyone likes to save money. But money isn't everything. While you may not find it worthwhile to use energy inefficient lighting that puts out a different spectrum of light, some people do. They are willing to spend the money because it gives them enjoyment.

It is honestly quite baffling that people on the side of science can't realize this.

An analogous situation is that of traveling long distances to visit relatives. It consumes a ton of energy and is expensive. So why do we do it? Because the enjoyment is worth the monetary expense and hopefully the harm to the environment. The same case can be made for lighting, depending on your level of enjoyment or annoyance from various spectrum of light.

Ok, not sure about you, but I graduated high school in 1980.... We studied "the coming ice age" in school. It was in Time magazine, it was on the news, it was WIDELY discussed, and people were actually worried about it...so don't sit there and say that it wasn't.

Why would you try to re-write history?

Secondly, there were no scientific papers that were brought to the world's attention denying the coming ice age and describing the coming "world warming"....everyone was worried about a coming ice age. I was there, I lived through this crap. I remember thinking, after none of it came to pass, " Why the hell did they tell us all this if it wasn't true?"

The difference between then and now is that back then, the scientists reporting this said that is what they BELIEVED would happen...I also remember being taught that this was their best "theory" as to what is coming. When it didn't happen, those scientists and their research kind of just "quietly" disappeared and the subject was allowed to die.

As another person who has seen a wide discrepancy between what I was taught in school (graduated HS in late 90s), I think the bigger issue here is how we were educated. I spent a big part of undergrad having various models of reality broken. It's not just stuff being simplified, or sugar-coated, it was fundamentally wrong.

I was lucky enough to have a strong education in the concepts of science to be able to evaluate & explore the stuff, but I saw other classmates just not be able to do that. I think that is part of the reason the general population has so many issues with believing things like evolution.

I never minded someone "breaking my reality" if what they were teaching was provably accurate. What I mind is when someone says "x" is going to happen/is happening, then can't explain the lack of "X" actually happening using their original supposition.

Sometime around the late 80s, we started accelerating the acceptance of theories that had smaller amounts of real data and more supposition, and it has scaled UP from then....it is NOT science, even if it turns out to be mostly correct...it is more like an "educated guess".Not how I was taught that science is done.

Ok, not sure about you, but I graduated high school in 1980.... We studied "the coming ice age" in school. It was in Time magazine, it was on the news, it was WIDELY discussed, and people were actually worried about it...so don't sit there and say that it wasn't.

I can't speak to what you studied in high school... and am even willing to believe that you were taught it too - but there is a mammoth difference that I am not going to let slide in this instance. I have a colleague who tells me that he was taught about "ancient astronauts" by a teacher who took von Däniken's nonsense to be science. I myself had a football coach with absolutely no credentials to teach, skill in, or apparent knowledge of math for a math class. He too had some pretty interesting (and completely wrong) ideas about the subject.

And as for the media... Just a few weeks ago I saw a segment on one of the national news networks about murmurations of Starlings and the anchor said something like "and it could even be some sort of telepathy." Do you really think that the actual science supports bird telepathy? Need I really say more?

Quote:

Why would you try to re-write history?

Nobody is trying to rewrite history. I am willing to believe that you studied this in high school and it is historical fact - that nobody denies - that the apparently wacky '70's era press reported all kinds of non-scientific nonsense. But it is also a historical fact that actual science at the time did not support "global cooling" and never did:

And since you didn't like the links hawkstone already provided, here is another.

Quote:

Secondly, there were no scientific papers that were brought to the world's attention denying the coming ice age and describing the coming "world warming"

You mean "never brought to your attention" don't you?

Quote:

The difference between then and now is that back then, the scientists reporting this

Scientists??? Or your teachers and the popular press? They are not the same thing.

Quote:

I also remember being taught that this was their best "theory" as to what is coming. When it didn't happen, those scientists and their research kind of just "quietly" disappeared and the subject was allowed to die.

Your beef is with your lousy high school teachers. Not science. You need to realize that there is a distinction.